When the seismic
plates of public opinion grind against each other as they inevitably do over complex
social issues such as abortion, prostitution, homosexual law reform, gay
marriage, the various political parties employ a conscience vote rather than
“whip” their MPs into towing the party line.
The Voluntary Euthanasia Bill is the latest of the social issues where
MPs are allowed a so called “free vote”.
It is important to note that our
Parliament has adopted a stance of being secular which means the clear separation
of church and state. No laws can be passed
based on privilege or preference being given to any religion or religious
grouping.
A conscience vote however can
blur that essential separation as some religious MPs will set aside that vital
separation of church and state by simply saying that it’s their value system and
not religious belief that requires them to vote a certain way. A person’s value
system is an entirely individualistic concept determined by personal virtue or
vices.
A conscience vote therefore presents the opportunity for a backdoor
introduction or re-introduction of religion into a secular Parliament. It is stretching credibility to believe an MP's
strong religious belief will be carefully balanced against public opinion and support
to the contrary. A conscience vote in Parliament
however does not require MPs to discard their personal value system in favour
of their constituents but neither should it allow nondisclosure/ privacy around
their commitment to a religious dogma when, by choice, they enter the arena of
politics or public life.
All members of
Parliament must disclose their financial associations which can include family
trusts when entering Parliament. They are not required to disclose their
religious convictions despite the secular position of Parliament. Conflicts of
interest are normally of a financial nature and should always disqualify an MP
from participation in a debate where their personal wealth is advantaged. They (MPs)
should also be compelled to disclose their religious creed lest they delegate
their civic responsibilities below that of their religious adherence thereby
creating not just a conflict of interest but the perception of uniting church
and state. In politics perception is reality.
As with all matters before
the Parliament which includes a conscience vote, the vested interests within our
wider society are perfectly entitled and even encouraged to promote retention
of the status quo. It is also entire appropriate for those with an alternative
point of view within the public domain, to actively engage in the process to
try to persuade public opinion to their way of thinking. MPs however usually remain strangely silent
especially if he/she has failed to fully disclose they carry with them - a
predetermined position based on their personal religious doctrinal beliefs.
Religious dogma or
doctrine is defined as the official set of principles of a church or authority
which are laid down as incontrovertibly true. The opposite of dogma/doctrine is
open mindedness which the public rightfully expect to be among the first
principles observed by all those who hold public office. That clearly isn’t a reality
but is no reason why society should not require adherence to this goal.
The reason to retain
and further develop the secular model of democracy is made obvious by simply
observing those countries who are not secular.
The conflict in the Middle East is but one appalling example why religion
and its associated zealotry in all its forms must be kept out of all
parliamentary processes. Jeremy Bentham (1746-1832) was a social reformer well
ahead of his time and observed nearly 200 years ago, “Fanaticism never
sleeps – it is never stopped by conscience for it has pressed conscience into
its service”.
The perils of
religious polarization must be negated by the strict enforcement of religious
neutrality within our NZ Parliament. It
is the duty of all within the confines of public life to act with good
conscience in all things but to also declare that their delegated authority
will be exercised - freed from all religious dogma and doctrine in the
governance of this country.
The principle
therefore which an MP must confront before casting a vote is - total adherence
to the requirement of separation of church and state. Any MP who flouts the
secular requirement of Parliament during a conscience vote - is guilty of
contempt of Parliament- the highest court or authority in the land.
Parliament now needs
to reaffirm that not only must separation be done - it must be seen to be done, (to
paraphrase a famous legal decree) before another conscience vote is taken in
our secular Parliament.
Gerry Eckhoff is a
former Member of Parliament and councillor on the Otago Regional Council.
1 comment:
I am not convinced by this argument. Religion is just one of many sources of ideology. There is a tacit assumption here that people who harbour conservative views are driven by religion. That may not be so. I am myself a secular conservative. For instance, I am intractably opposed to same-sex marriage, but my reasons have absolutely no basis in religion.
Asking MPs to declare their religious affiliation is an invasion of privacy and one must ask whether it would stop there. Why not get them to declare their memberships of hobby groups, clubs and so on as well?
Most MPs do tell their electorates plenty about themselves, including their ideological, political and, indeed, religious beliefs (or absence thereof). MPs who are strongly religious do not tend to hide the fact. If they still get voted in, it means that their constituencies approve of those beliefs in the knowledge of how those will be translated into policy if adopted.
Secularism does not mean targeting religion - it means treating it like any other ideology or belief system.
Post a Comment